ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and failed to consider the grounds of appeal, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was bad in law and non-est as it was passed in the name of a deceased person. The appeal was therefore allowed on this preliminary ground.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the material placed by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) wrongly applied Section 249(4)(b) because the assessee, being an agriculturist with no taxable income, was not liable to pay advance tax. The tribunal relied on the decision in Vikas Hooda vs. ITO.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, noting that Form 26AS was stated to be revised. The assessee was directed to produce evidence for accounting of interest income and for liabilities pertaining to earlier years.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one chance to explain their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities ought to have considered the evidence and submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence (cash book and vouchers) to the CIT(A) which were not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering this material.

The Tribunal held that the issue of security deposits from sub-contractors was not part of the limited scrutiny parameters. The AO expanded the scope of scrutiny without proper permission, making the addition unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the deposits were backed by agreements and affidavits, and payments to sub-contractors were evidenced by TDS.

The Tribunal found that the material placed before the lower authorities was not adequately considered. The objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who issued the notice under Section 148 also required verification.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities passed ex parte orders without adequately considering the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.

The tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had passed the order considering the lack of appearance and submissions by the assessee despite opportunities, and thus dismissed the appeal ex-parte, the CIT(A) did not advert to the contentions raised by the assessee through the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the explanations for the non-appearance before the CIT(A) were not convincing. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) for a denovo (fresh) order in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard as the CIT(E) rejected the application without proper service of notices or further attempts to contact the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The tribunal noted that the appeals had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed.